rem claim in Washington

2005Although factually distinguishable on that basis, the court’s holding established a rule of law which is equally applicable to in personam actions that do not seek “damages or civil liability.” See id. ¶16 A petition for a temporary order of protection is not a civil action for damages, as contemplated by RCW 4.24.500 and .510.

2005Although factually distinguishable on that basis, the court's holding established a rule of law which is equally applicable to in personam actions that do not seek "damages or civil liability." See Id. ¶ 16 A petition for a temporary order of protection is not a civil action for damages, as contemplated by RCW 4.24.500 and .510.

2025The court also recognized that prior Washington authority permitted quiet title claims like the one Flying T asserts here but stated that the rationale of the cases finding an in rem exception to tribal sovereign immunity was disapproved in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 584 U.S. 554, 558 , 138 S. Ct. 1649 , 200 L.

2025The court also recognized that prior Washington authority permitted quiet title claims like the one Flying T asserts here but stated that the rationale of the cases finding an in rem exception to tribal sovereign immunity was disapproved in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 584 U.S. 554, 558 , 138 S. Ct. 1649 , 200 L.

2013Generally, a judgment is appealable as a matter of right only after the trial court disposes of all the claims of all the parties.17 A judgment that does not dispose of all the claims as to all the parties may be appealed only ifthe trial court makes the findings described in CR 54(b)18 and RAP 2.2(d).19 Strict compliance with CR 54(b) is required.20 16 National Bank of Washington, 83 Wn.2d at 442 . 17 See RAP 2.2(d). 18 CR 54(b) provides in relevant part: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, or when

2012In his brief of appellant, for example, he cites Farwest Steel, 102 Wn.2d at 490 , to support his proposition that Washington courts have “put function ahead of form” in order to rule that statutes essentially creating an in rem claim are unenforceable in state court.

1997The third claim is an in rem claim against the vessel, and the Ghotras attempted to secure a jury trial for this claim as well by requesting that the court exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claim. 17 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1) provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." The latter clause, known as the "savings to suitors" clause, "leave[s] state courts 'competent' to adjudicate mar

1997The third claim is an in rem claim against the vessel, and the Ghotras attempted to secure a jury trial for this claim as well by requesting that the court exercise pendent jurisdiction over the claim. 17 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1) provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." The latter clause, known as the "savings to suitors" clause, "leave[s] state courts 'competent' to adjudicate mar

1997This result is likely to occur if all claims are closely related factually." Id. at 1032 (citing Fitzgerald, 374 U.S. at 21 , 83 S.Ct. at 1650-51 ). 29 The Ghotras invoked the jurisdiction of two historically separate departments in a single action, combining claims at law under diversity jurisdiction with an in rem claim under admiralty jurisdiction.

1997This result is likely to occur if all claims are closely related factually." Id. at 1032 (citing Fitzgerald, 374 U.S. at 21 , 83 S.Ct. at 1650-51 ). 29 The Ghotras invoked the jurisdiction of two historically separate departments in a single action, combining claims at law under diversity jurisdiction with an in rem claim under admiralty jurisdiction.

1997This result is likely to occur if all claims are closely related factually." Id. at 1032 (citing Fitzgerald, 374 U.S. at 21 , 83 S.Ct. at 1650-51 ). 29 The Ghotras invoked the jurisdiction of two historically separate departments in a single action, combining claims at law under diversity jurisdiction with an in rem claim under admiralty jurisdiction.